An Example of Why Socialism Doesn't Work

Originally posted by: Dealer1

Tom can always be counted on to demonstrate a classic logical fallacy: Straw Man Argument.  Go ahead Mr. Tom, stand that straw man up and then best the hell out of him.  


Yeah. Sweden and post-Mao China are obvious examples. Sweden is prosperous and happy and its citizens are in the top six in life expectancy. China, after literally fifty centuries of periodic famine, is at last feeding all of its people. Though those are quite different, I call them both successful.

 

I didn't bother to respond to Tom's demand because he just would have pulled some Tom-logic out of his ass to argue that either or both countries aren't successful or aren't socialist.

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

No. You can find that out yourself easily enough. If I gave you a list, you'd just dredge up a Tom-stat that "proves" that a nation in the list isn't successful. The price of radishes or something.

 

If you want me to honor you with an answer, you'll first have to provide a definition of what "successful" supposedly means. 


As usual when pressed on an answer kevin refuses or is unable to answer

Originally posted by: Dealer1

Tom can always be counted on to demonstrate a classic logical fallacy: Straw Man Argument.  Go ahead Mr. Tom, stand that straw man up and then best the hell out of him.  


  Actually Tom can be counted on to be a source of reason with actual verifiable facts as he has demonstrared time and again.

Originally posted by: tom

As usual when pressed on an answer kevin refuses or is unable to answer


I can't answer a question as vague as that. Define "successful." C'mon. You can do it.


Originally posted by: David Miller

  Actually Tom can be counted on to be a source of reason with actual verifiable facts as he has demonstrared time and again.


Yes, when you want to bolster bullshit, call it "actual verifiable facts" and it magically becomes gospel truth.

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

Yeah. Sweden and post-Mao China are obvious examples. Sweden is prosperous and happy and its citizens are in the top six in life expectancy. China, after literally fifty centuries of periodic famine, is at last feeding all of its people. Though those are quite different, I call them both successful.

 

I didn't bother to respond to Tom's demand because he just would have pulled some Tom-logic out of his ass to argue that either or both countries aren't successful or aren't socialist.


Is "success" equated with "good governance" does the latter require a basic respect for human rights? 

 

I wouldn't argue modern China as an example of good governance.

 Social credit scores, lack of free speech, political prisoners and "disapearings" , slave labor camps, reeducation camps, campaigns of genocide, aggression against Taiwan, The Philippines, and other countries. Etc

 

Taiwan might be a better example. 

Liberal democracy with a strong social safety net. 

 

 

Originally posted by: LiveFreeNW

Is "success" equated with "good governance" does the latter require a basic respect for human rights? 

 

I wouldn't argue modern China as an example of good governance.

 Social credit scores, lack of free speech, political prisoners and "disapearings" , slave labor camps, reeducation camps, campaigns of genocide, aggression against Taiwan, The Philippines, and other countries. Etc

 

Taiwan might be a better example. 

Liberal democracy with a strong social safety net. 

 

 


Yeah, but Taiwan is staunchly capitalist. I never said China was perfect or that its present condition would be called "successful" for a First World nation. But life in China was miserable and short for almost all of its history. The Chinese government --which was only truly socialist after Mao--improved greatly on that. That's why I mentioned everybody having enough to eat. Paradise? No. 

Originally posted by: Kevin Lewis

Yeah, but Taiwan is staunchly capitalist. I never said China was perfect or that its present condition would be called "successful" for a First World nation. But life in China was miserable and short for almost all of its history. The Chinese government --which was only truly socialist after Mao--improved greatly on that. That's why I mentioned everybody having enough to eat. Paradise? No. 


Fair point

Yesterday President Trump demanded all US defense companies stop doing stock buybacks, cancel dividends, and their CEO's should make a maximum of 5 million/year.

 

is that socialism?

Edited on Jan 9, 2026 6:43am
Originally posted by: PJ Stroh

Yesterday President Trump demanded all US defense companies stop doing stock buybacks, cancel dividends, and their CEO's should make a maximum of 5 million/year.

 

is that socialism?


   Here is what socialism is defined as being (from Google) -- In simple terms, socialism is an economic and political idea where the community or government owns and manages major resources and businesses (means of production) for the benefit of everyone, aiming for fairer wealth distribution, less inequality, and guaranteed basic needs like healthcare and education, contrasting with private ownership in capitalism. It's a broad system, ranging from strong government involvement to democratic models with social programs -- I hope that this answers your question.

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now